In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shorthouse, David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
ou wrote (END)
[David Shorthouse wrote:]
Please note my earlier comment on quoting formats.
And this is exactly what uBio already provides with their LinkIT tool
(http://names.mbl.edu/tools/linkit.php) and essentially
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shorthouse, David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Please note my earlier comment on quoting formats.
[David Shorthouse wrote:]
Sorry, you'll just have to tolerate it. Until Microsoft updates Office
2007 to deal with this possible bug with text email, I refuse to install
3rd
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shorthouse, David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
my forum (http://canadianarachnology.dyndns.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=
118)
It appears that Davis has now wiped the discussion of microformats from
the forum on his website!
--
Andy Mabbett
Say NO! to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andy Mabbett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shorthouse, David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
my forum (http://canadianarachnology.dyndns.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=
118)
It appears that
David
has now wiped the discussion of microformats from the
On Dec 6, 2006, at 1:14 AM, Shorthouse, David wrote:
To that end, I now make use of uBio LSIDs marked-up species pages
with:
h1span class=species urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:2029133Theridion
agrifoliae/span Levi, 1957/h1
.in the hopes that uBio's and other LSIDs will eventually
contribute
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shorthouse, David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I am a relative newcomer to microformats and come with a biological sciences
background so am most interested in the species microformat group of
discussions (http://microformats.org/wiki/species).
It's good to have you
.could ever contribute to the semantic web in a meaningful way will stand
the test of taxonomic revisions
I agree with this. It's unclear to me how the current proposal even
relates to the research gathered, and what use cases it might support.
Typically, microformat proposals are heavily
.could ever contribute to the semantic web in a meaningful way will
stand
the test of taxonomic revisions
I agree with this. It's unclear to me how the current proposal even
relates to the research gathered, and what use cases it might support.
Typically, microformat proposals are heavily
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shorthouse, David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Rod Page and I with contributions from Charles Roper have been having an
interesting discussion about OpenSearch on his iSpecies
(http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/ispecies/) blog
(http://ispecies.blogspot.com/) as it
On Dec 6, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
.could ever contribute to the semantic web in a meaningful way
will stand
the test of taxonomic revisions
I agree with this.
You may well be right - but since dealing with taxonomic
revisions is
entirely outside the scope of uFs, so what?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott
Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Dec 6, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
.could ever contribute to the semantic web in a meaningful way
will stand
the test of taxonomic revisions
I agree with this.
You may well be right - but since dealing with
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Benjamin
West [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
What market?
Market may have several meanings:
* the mindshare of developers
* documents on the web
* formats to represent data
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it
means just what I choose
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shorthouse, David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
The advantage of the LSIDs is that they may act as a mapping catalog
that is capable of drawing the lines from old names (or even current
names that have not been fully accepted) to current nomenclature.
Merely using
13 matches
Mail list logo
